There are so many straw men in there I wouldn't know where to start even if I felt inclined to indulge you. It's an impressive and detailed rebuttal of the case against expansion, however as it's not a case I'm seeking to make it's largely redundant.
My point was and is that the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked. I'm afraid on that point I must tell you that yes, I do think you have it wrong. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but to date you have chosen not to support your position preferring instead to focus on issues which I am not seeking to dispute.
SL teams in Dublin, Cardiff, Rome etc..., absolutely. No argument from me, it sounds great just give me a reason to believe that if we do it the same way as we did with Paris, Gateshead & to a lesser extent Crusaders we won't get the same result, no SL club within a couple of years. As you say it shouldn't be about expansion v heartland and I would be equally sceptical about any plan to expend valuable time, credibility and resources on a harebrained plan to drop heartlands clubs into SL on the off chance it might work.
I'm happy to indulge you sir, and get back to debate
You say "the means of expansion you advocate, namely top down expansion, has been tried and does not appear to have worked".
What I am saying is that the top down method financed by giving London or Crusaders or Gateshead the same money as Leeds, Hull and Wigan has not worked because the level of investment is paltry and does not take into account the fact that these expansion clubs need higher levels of income to succeed at top down.
What I am saying if people want to engage in the debate, is that when there was money there you saw success. London achieved fifth best supported club and fourth in the league and went on to the challenge cup final. Celtic Crusaders battled out a close game before 6,000 fans with Saints, Gatehead made mid-table and had crowds in excess of most traditional clubs from year one not far behind what widnes managed this year.
So top down works, it is just that it is underfinanced, and fails only when the finance fails. Which is usually relatively quickly
Now how Suprleague/RFL use the SKY money is their choice, but it would not be mine. I recognise the tremendous added value a succesful London and Wales would give to the game and i think maybe you do. I have always thought that a strategic club or two could be financed adequately enough for it to grow. Even SL through Neil Hudgell admitted London may have to be "centrally funded" if Mr, Hughes pulled out. So I'm not way off beam.
As for your idea it has "not worked" when it comes to these clubs building their own resources, as far as London go the informed opinion you can read in RL World is that they oversee one of the best player development systems now and that is so valuable to RL. Celtic Crusaders were getting good results with the kids too as reported by posters from down there and the RL press.
Top down works but the SL clubs and SKY won't make the adequate investment. It worked at Melbourne storm but I recognise the Aussie game is a greater attraction.
It was Mr. Keighley remarks I was replying to because he said it was not worth removing such as Hull.K.R. for London which was with respect to him typical bias against non northern clubs. Hull FC are in place to develop RL players and attract RL fans form Hull so the game doesn't need two clubs to do this, it needs a club to do this in other parts of the country to expand our game
Rugby League is a minority sport with scant resources it can build outside the M62 if that was planned and funded.
Finally (please do come back to the debate if you wish you'd be welcome) you refer to a "harebrained scheme to drop (I think you mean expansion here?) clubs into SL on the off chance it will work".
Don't you think Salford were dropped into SL on the off chance they would work? Or Halifax?? Or Bradford?? Or Wakefield?? Or Oldham?? The list is endless, and we see Cas declaring they are "not working" Neil Hudgell can't make HKR work either so I don't think it fair to differentiate between clubs depending on wether they are supposedly "Traditional" or "Expansion" they are all Rugby League clubs and if ever SKY/RFL/SLE decided to use Superleague as a vehicle for expanding the game, because the game only expands to any great degree in SL areas, I think the first six names on there have to be Leeds, Wigan, Hull, London, south wales and France.
I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on this?